Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 20, 2012 12:30am-1:00am PDT

12:30 am
its doors ♪ ♪ so our landlord can make a bit more ♪ ♪ making this neighborhood all look the same ♪ ♪ shirley, i'm going to put up a fight ♪ ♪ so i can at least say i tried ♪ ♪ to hold on to what is mine ♪ 47 years, i've been working here. -- i've been working here ♪ ♪ saving my pennies, earning my dollars ♪ ♪ now i'm supposed to pick up and go without any say ♪ ♪ without any soul ♪ these 47 years ♪ when i was a boy ♪ ♪ i came to this land
12:31 am
♪ i worked very hard ♪ steel mills ♪ picking fruit ♪ i did what i had to do ♪ raising my children ♪ loving my ♪ i came -- loving my wife' ♪ ♪ i came for the dream ♪ before that spirit broke ♪ 47 years ♪ i've been working here ♪ ♪ saving my pennies, counting my dollars ♪ ♪ earning the blue on my collar ♪ ♪ and now i'm supposed to pick up and go ♪ ♪ without any say ♪ ♪ without any soul ♪ these 47 years ♪ sitting here in this bar
12:32 am
tonight ♪ ♪ looking at the crystal the ♪ i think of how i built this place ♪ ♪ and all the time and love it takes ♪ [bell] ♪ 47 years ♪ i've been working here ♪ ♪ saving my pennies ♪ county my dollars ♪ are in the blue and blue ♪ -- earning the blue on white collar ♪ i know my time is up. [applause] >> good afternoon, commissioners. that was a tough act to follow. as i was strolling up polk street today, i spent a lot of -- i spent some time talking to a guy who's spent a lot of time in the gold dust. i said, how are things going? he said, people are asking if
12:33 am
i'm going to be open wednesday, thursday. i said, nobody really knows what is quite to happen there. but we do know one thing, that special, extended the byrum has caused a lot of awareness in the city, and has caused us to think about what is important to us as citizens and tourists, especially places that are dear to our heart that have been in san francisco and served san francisco well. in terms of the resolution on tuesday at the board of supervisors, i think she brought to light a little more awareness of what is going on down there. possibly, a study survey, possibly some controls. what is happening is that it is beginning to look like a strip mall. we have allowed people to just come in, you know, with no controls, highest bidder. at some point in time, the character changes down there.
12:34 am
and the culture changes down there. this is a city that depends on the tourism and the people who live here. the tourism, if you just cannot think of staying in a hotel, because that is there -- you cannot just think of them staying in a hotel, because that is their home when they are here. they go to places like fisherman's wharf, gold dust lounge, and when they go back to wherever they came from, they had a san francisco experience. this is really important. this item goes before historic preservation. i think it will probably across your desk at some point. i want you to think about what is really culturally significant and what matters to the city. what is desirable? what is necessary? what is compatible down there? we need to have more citizens way and -- weigh i n verses
12:35 am
been told that it is going in because it is permissive the permitted to do so. i want to thank you all for listening and i will see you in the near future. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gordon marr. i wanted to speak about the need for the commission and the planning department to update its criteria and guidelines and how you are looking at formula retail businesses they're having a growing presence here in the city, and in looking at the impact of these businesses. we do have existing formula retail policy ordnances in place -- ordinandce in place for the discretionary view
12:36 am
guidelines, but i think those guidelines need to be looked at and updated to in regards to the trends that we are seeing with chain stores increasing their presence in san francisco. particularly in the three sector. we are seeing national, or even global chains starting to expand their presence in san francisco. these chains, based on the current definition of formula retail are considered the same as safeway or leckies. there qualitatively different, these new types of corporate formula retail growth chains. additionally, the way the guidelines are written, they're just looking at the impact on the immediate neighborhood or district that the business is being opened in. for many of the new kind of formula of retail businesses
12:37 am
moving into the city, their impact is far beyond that immediate district. for example, target come up which you are where is opening two stores within the city. the impact that target has on small businesses and labor standards, the character in san francisco -- that goes far beyond the immediate districts they will be opening up in. there's a strong need for the commission and the department to update its criteria on formula of retail, in light of the presence of very large and national and even global corporate chain expanding into san francisco. thank you. president fong: is there any additional public comment? the next item, please. commissioners, we can start your regular calendar now with item #9. 2,011.0802c about 1100
12:38 am
divisadero street. >> the item is for a conditional use authorization to install 12 panel antennas in the church steeple, which will be approximately 10 ft. in height and an overall height of approximately 40 ft. from great. the mechanical equipment would be located at flesch against the church is wall and be located 15 ft. from the sidewalk along turk street. it has received one letter in support and two letters against the project. president fong: is there public comment on this item? oh, project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners.
12:39 am
i and the internal affairs representative for at&t in san francisco. i'm here today with those who conducted the radiofrequency test and analysis that are in your packet. i am the project manager of this site. at&t is seeking your approval on it -- for a conditional use permit on 1100 divisadero street. it would be increased by hike approximately 10 ft.. the mechanical cabinets would be located in a great along the east property line approximately 15 ft. from the turks street party line. it is a preferred location it publicly used structure under the city's wireless telecommunications guidelines. this side cannot located approximately three blocks south of gary streets and well served
12:40 am
motorists and residents in small-scale commercial districts. as outlined in the application, at&t conducted an alternative analysis on four sites in the surrounding area even though it was not required. this site is necessary to close a significant coverage service gap in our wireless network, as explained in your packet. i want to thank the commission and planning development staff for their hard work in this them -- the design and making sure it is compatible with the neighborhood. we ask for your support as we work to meet the telecommunications demands in the city of san francisco. we're happy to answer any questions you may have. president fong: is there any public comment?
12:41 am
>> i have how many minutes? president fong: 3. >> thank you. i live at 1120 broderick. it is a two-flatbread built -- building. -- is a two-flat building. prior to this notice, there was an attempt to put an tonight -- and 10 on on the church -- an antenna on the church about state justice. i like to know how this differs from the prior attempt, which went off the calendar because of protests. i happen to have acute hearing, and i have had problems sometimes with television frequencies. i am really curious and i tend
12:42 am
to feel rather negative about this particular operation. i am sure if this corporate -- were postponed, then they would go to the buddhist church to try to get some arrangements there. but i am really curious how this differs from an earlier attempt with the serbian church on turks street. president fong: any additional public comment? commissioner moore. ykykissioner moore. would like to ask mr. lindsey of the physical height it of the tower by 10 ft.. our own jurisdiction about these antennas is limited by federally established criteria, however in this particular case, there's a physical alteration of the
12:43 am
church tower. how does that affect zoning and architecture, etc? because 10 ft. is not just extra housing. it is a full story of modifications to a building that will be required. could you explain that process? >> let me find the photos. teddy might have them faster than i can get them. it is a 65 ft. height district. the project is in the height district. and the photos here, here is what the site looks like now
12:44 am
traveling west on turk street. here is what it could look like after the installation. generally, it is within the height limit. it is not a very bulky element of the property. it is certainly -- it conceals the antenna in a manner that would be supported at a staff level. let me know if that answers your question. commissioner moore: it does and it doesn't. church steeples are an architectural element, which in its own right are in proportion to the building it serves. let's take famous cathedrals and do we now add an additional 10 ft. to them in order to cut -- to accommodate at&t panels.
12:45 am
there's architecture that is not being considered by adding to the structure as a whole. if it would just be the way we normally do antennas, which are appendices hidden behind gables and doors, that is one thing. but by extending the entire tower, i would like to look at that a bit differently and i expect that would be a different kind of review. >> if you're concerned about the overall height of it, and maybe teddy can give some input on this -- the top of the antennas reach about 42 ft.. and the top of the structure is about 46 ft.. there is a few feet -- perhaps. teddy would need to give her input on this. perhaps a bit of will or room would help to address your concern -- a bit -- wiggle room would help to address your concerns.
12:46 am
>> -- commissioner moore: i am looking for comments by other commissioners. when it starts to affect buildings in a physical way where it modifies an architecture, a respective two the fact that i like the building -- regardless of whether i like the building or not. that is all i'm saying. commissioner antonini: i have some questions on the same subject. it would seem as though the addition of the additional height, 10 ft. approximately, keeps it within any zoning problems and is still compliant. is that correct? >> yes. commissioner antonini: and i also would assume that the church, which is the owner of the real-estate, accepts the addition. >> they gave their authorization.
12:47 am
commissioner antonini: those are the two issues i see. if the church is in favor of this, and i do not see any reason why we would oppose it. and actually, the higher tower is more pleasing esthetically. >> it gives more prominence. commissioner antonini: yes, it does not give the appearance of a tower before. it is just the height of the building. >> i understand at the staff level trying to prevent a lot of rooftop projections. we work very hard to try to prevent that. in this particular instance, i would almost say -- this was not a hard project to give a thumbs up on the design perspective. you do not see any rooftop projections. we're not deciding them on how
12:48 am
many canisters there are going to have. on how many penthouses are trying to be added. while i understanding your concerns, and we do look very stringently at a staff level on design, this is something that on a staff level is very appropriate. commissioner miguel: remember a short time backe we had antennas at a service station on 19th avenue and we had eight our projection that was a bit of a stump. they were increasing it to accommodate. when i go out to take a look at it, it was my personal viewpoint that it actually created the better piece of architecture. because of that, i drove by and looked at this building. truthfully, i think as a tower on a church with a cross on top,
12:49 am
this could take the other 10 ft. and at least in my aesthetic estimation, it would be an improvement. but i think the consideration of fact -- of the department did not state. although, we understand that they take a look at it, it was not stated in the material we received. that is compatible with the building itself. we did not really get that viewpoint. there could be as a 10-foot extension on the other towers on other churches that they're building that would look totally wrong. in these two instances, it was my aesthetic thought that they work. however, if the material comes to us in that manner, we would
12:50 am
not have these questions, and we would know beforehand that the department is looking at that aspect. commissioner borden: i think it would be useful to know what other places on this property that you looked. bobby's the, it is a bit more challenging for put it in yet on the roof -- obviously, it is a bit more challenging for putting it on the roof. what other parts were concealed? >> if you were to put it in the roof, the provider would not get the height they need in order to get the coverage that they are seeking. there is not a lot of structure on it. there is a parking lot. you do not want to put a new, full structure in the parking lot. i think this really was the most
12:51 am
appropriate place for them aesthetically. >> -- commissioner sugaya: i would like to echo what commissioner miguel said. and as an interpretation of what commissioner moore was trying to get that, to have a staff report of these instances with respect to architecture and compatibility and all of that. secondly, if staff other antenna. i do not know if it even came to the department. >> the was a project on st. joseph, i think. they worked on the design. they worked on the location of the equipment. it was perhaps a year they did that. we got to the point of noticing it. it did get a lot of opposition. they did voluntarily withdraw
12:52 am
it, but did not say why. they just withdrew a without prejudice for future application. commissioner sugaya: does the person who testified have any questions? you can meet with staff. commissioner moore: the skeptics are subjective. the public needs to have an ability to judge and to see our actions within something that is tangibly explained, which might mean if there is indeed an architectural reconfiguration of part of the building with an antenna, i am all part of that, i think there has to be a mechanism which allows the public to participate in the discussion. normally, an alteration to a building becomes a d.r. and i think you can create your
12:53 am
own rules to prepare yourself, to give people notice on a potential architectural discussion, should it involve the modifications of the building. this is positive, you just need to properly anchoret in how you bring it forward. commissioner sugaya: move to approve. commissioner miguel: second. commissioner sugaya: with conditions. >> the motion on the floor is for approval with conditions. commissioner antonini: aye. aye. -- commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner moore: aye. vice president wu: aye. president fong: aye. >> the motion passed unanimously. you are now on item 10 for 1245 south van ness avenue.
12:54 am
>> good afternoon, commissioners. brittany bendix, planning department staff. this is a request for a conditional use authorization to pursue a retail grocery store doing business as fresh and easy. this is within the nc-3 and rh-1 districts, 40-x/50-40-x height. this will divide into a grocery store and a commercial retail space. this involves removal of approximately 16 off-street parking space, and we will reconfigure the law to provide 45 parking spaces, bicycle
12:55 am
spaces, and to improve traffic flow. this was originally scheduled on february 23. the commission moved to continue this item to today at the request of supervisor campos, to allow a project sponsored to meet with opponents in the hope a compromise could be negotiated. my understanding is that meeting was scheduled for last night. however, it was canceled earlier this week at the request of the project if opponents. i have some e-mails that have been presented to me. i have copies i can pass out to you. they are divided by letters of support and opposition. i also have a letter from malia cohen's office. those are all individual copies. at the time the case report was published, only one resident opposed the proposal, stemming from an easement dispute between
12:56 am
the neighboring property owner and the subject property owner. the issue remains unresolved and the department has not received any information that suggests the easement legally excess. there have been 22 e-mails in opposition, climbing areas of concern. the first is a crime that the market does not include vouchers and under the wic program. in march, 2011, citing budgetary limitations, the california department of public health established a moratorium on new vendor applications to wic. however, the market continues to participate in the federal government program commonly referred to as food stamps. the second concern is that the market is not unionized and will underemployed because they operate only using self checkout stands. the perception there are no cashier's present has led to a
12:57 am
fear the market would facilitate the sale of alcohol to underage youth. the market is not unionized. however, they have stated a 100% local hiring objective for this site and will partner with local organizations to attempt to reach that. only four bank of eight stanzas are operated by the customer -- only four of 8 stands are operated by the customer. the previous close retirement acquired a liquor license that predates the special use the strict controls. after 30 days of inactivity, the non-conforming use license expired for the site. however, any new grocery store may still acquire a new liquor license, so long as it conforms to the floor area and sales restrictions required by the special use district. the final claim is that the market will this place
12:58 am
alternative course three options in the neighborhood. with the exception of the past 18 months, the site has been occupied by a grocery store since 1959. the first tenant would be considered formula retail by present standards. the second tenant, delano market, had 11 stores before borne by group. fresh and easy will occupy a smaller retail space than either previous tenant. the department has also received comments from 11 individuals in support of the project. these projects cited the store as an important addition to the neighborhood that would complement existing activities and provide immediate access to greater variety of goods and services. supervisor cohen has also indicated the positive contributions and good neighbor efforts made by fresh and easy in the bayview. the planning commission must consider the applicable zoning districts, for military uses,
12:59 am
the availability of similar retail uses, existing vacancy rates, and uses within that district. the commission must also consider compatibility with the architectural and as that the character of the district. the only parcel in the district is the subject parcel itself. the nearest alternative general grocery store is over a mile away. to provide a better frame of reference for the formula retell presence within the neighborhood, staff collected information from both the mission street and 14 mission street nct districts. formula retail sites represent a minority of retail uses within both districts. the department is recommending approval of the project, because the proposal will reestablish a use that has

54 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on